While I was doing my usual blog surfing to catch up on what I missed over night, I came across a blog entry by Ezra Klein about Eliot Spitzer that struck me as warning for all those would be reformers out there, including Barack Obama.

...what we're seeing here is not the fall -- if indeed he does fall -- of a high-flying governor. It's the final tumble of a crushed reformer. Spitzer, for reasons both structural and personal, has been utterly humbled by Albany. The new capitalism he promised, the age of transparency he spoke of, the national ambitions he harbored -- all have broken before the obstacles he faced in the governor's mansion. When you think of the hype he was getting only a couple years ago, that's a rather remarkable fact. I don't care about the prostitution. But the capacity of the system to stand against those who would reform it, and who come into office with a broad mandate to do so, is really quite sobering.

There are so many examples of how the polling industry needs reform. They have a glut of polls from non-consequential times, no polling at crucial moments, and then misreport results at other times.

The California Field poll is an example:
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/ 1/30/321121.html

The poll was based on a telephone survey of 511 likely voters in the Democratic primary was conducted between Jan. 25 -Feb. 1.

The results show Clinton 36 obama 34.
Here's the lead in the newspaper:

""A startling surge of support for Barack Obama has catapulted the Illinois senator into a virtual tie with Hillary Rodham Clinton in California's Democratic presidential primary, a Field Poll released Saturday shows."""

Here are my issues:

1. This poll began surveys 5 days before Edwards left the race
2. This poll began 6 days before a historic debate
3 This poll spans ONE FULL WEEK

4. This poll reports the full Obama South Carolina/Kennedy bounce at a time when it has faded
   
5. People are using this poll to corroborate Zogby's polls which themselves are unbelievable
   
6. It wasn't startling after the 2 weeks Obama had in Jan.

The end result is that it inspires Senator Obama's people to work harder. It gives the media their most desired "neck and neck" storyline.

The problem is: IT'S NOT NECK AND NECK from all available evidence.
I haven't seem any post debate polls both on the state or national level that haven't shown a Hillary surge.
We all know before the debate IT WAS NECK AND NECK and I SAID SO. Since then, to my delight the evidence from Rasmussen , Gallup, and a slew of state polls conducted after the debate show good news.
Of course Zogby could be right and the others wrong about the last 2 days. But on some blogs people are using the Field Poll as evidence that Zogby's not alone. Zogby tested 1/31 - 2/2 while the field tested 1/25 - 2/1.
The Field Poll is just advertising for Senator Obama. It is political spin.
That is one reason why I don't support campaign finance reform because it doesn't include the media. Plus I believe in freedom of speech. But if everyone else is going to be regulated, the media and the polling outfits should also.

Here is a "nonpartisan" poll which has a great reputation that is injecting itself into the debate by releasing data from a favorable Obama time into a period that is favorable for Clinton.
Look at the manipulation that can occur:
Since no one knows when they are "in the field" they can extend or shorten their work to "shape" the results. In this case, pro Obama would be older dates, and pro Clinton would be newer dates.
Had we known beforehand what they were going to do then they would be have to stay with that plan. Also, they don't have to report the results if they don't like them, or they can minimize their importance.

Either way, the papers that report this without the big caveats that came with Hillary's Florida win (remember no delegates) are contributing to the Obama campaign and should have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

I don't think this other polls (I think are bad) can change an election. It will probably help Senator Clinton in the end if it motivates her people even more.
If this is the worst the MSM does until Tuesday, I'll sign for that right now.

I have the credibility to write this diary as on the day of the debate, my diary was:
"dogfight for dem nom"
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/31/1393 7/5316#commenttop

I can honestly say, I feel the race is over, and we should rally early around the ticket of
Clinton-Obama 2008.

(update) msnbc and mason-dixon have done a similar thing: They released a batch of state polls from 1/30 - feb1. The surveys start before the debate. http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/920176.html They all show clinton leading except Georgia. But it makes no sense to release this information, unless you let people know that the poll began before the biggest event of the campaign

* Topic- Campaign finance reform

* Purpose- To persuade all Americans that a $1 contribution from any U.S. citizen is all that is necessary to fund a responsible political campaign and more than what's necessary corrupts and excludes most American voters.

* Thesis- Large campaign contributions have always corrupted American politics and excluded the voices of most Americans. If we allow for only $1 campaign contributions all Americans can become equally invested and included in our political system and at the same time reduce political corruption.

* Goal- Less money more votes

INTRODUCTION
Free speech is not enough; a democracy that speaks for everyone requires equal speech as much as it requires free speech. Freedom without equality corrupts and corrodes democracy. When we give or take more than other Americans can give we discriminate against and exclude these Americans, we corrupt our democracy and corrode their trust and confidence in the American dream. To exclude any American is to oppress them; exclusion is oppression, whether by neglect or intent. When there is no equality between votes and money democracy is corrupted. "For our democracy to survive and thrive, we need to bring more people, particularly low- and moderate-income people, into the democratic process."(Raby, 1992) By allowing for only $1 contributions to each political campaign all Americans can become equally invested, included and engaged in our political system and at the same time end this corrupting, corrosive and exclusionary oppression.

Is it just me, or does John Edwards sometimes remind anyone else of your typical superhero?  You know, fighting for the little guy, saving democracy, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?  Well, OK, maybe not that last one, but the man is inspiring.

Today, John gave a speech in New Hampshire that was all about saving democracy.  After years of having politicians tell us that the best we can expect is incremental change within our broken system, it is quite astounding to hear someone actually tell the truth about what is wrong with our system, and propose major reforms to fix it. To me, having the courage to confront our big problems and offer real solutions makes John a real hero, despite the conspicuous lack of spandex in his wardrobe.

Check out this article from Fairvote's website: The framers of the Constitution wisely ensured that the act of making changes to our nation’s founding document would be difficult, time consuming, and only possible with the assent of super-majorities of both Congress, and states. Certainly, to make such an attempt would mean that the issue at hand was of astounding importance.

If there is one issue that has been brought to bear on the Constitution more than any other, surely that cause must strike at the very heart of our freedoms and our identity as a nation. What might the focus of such a consistent legislative call-to arms be? National security? Freedom of speech? Morals and values?

The answer may surprise you. According to the Congressional Research Service, over 600 attempts have been made to amend to the Constitution regarding reform of the Electoral College since 1889 - more than for any other concern! And that's even after the 12th Amendment fixed the most glaring flaws in the original Electoral College rules.*
Keep reading to find out more...

I worked with Matt when he was president of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association (NLNA) and I served as executive director. Northern Liberties has been ground zero for redevelopment in recent years, and Matt was not afraid to stand up to developers, including the biggest in town, Bart Blatstein.

Cross posted on Beltway Progressive.

In the Connection newspaper today, Brian McNicoll, Director of Communications, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform accuses Dan Catalano of making up facts on whether Tom Davis can "measure up" should he decide to run for the U.S. Senate ["The man who would be king," The Odd Dominion, May 1, 2007].  In his retort, McNicoll is certainly guilty of making up his own facts to save his boss's face. (Was this distortion written on government time?)
Davis is stealing money from you through his contributions, his PACS, and his wife's lobbying/consulting job. He's selling government contracts on Walter Reed, Iraq, even the telephone, GSA's biggest contract ever at 20 BILLION.  Please read more on the flip.

The House Democratic leadership is going to finalize a lobbying reform bill this Friday, sending it to the House Judiciary Committee and then to the full House next week on Friday, if all goes as planned. This bill contains important provisions about "bundling" campaign contributions, phony grassroots campaigns and the "revolving door".

The importance of this bill is that is stands as a test on how serious the 110th Congress really is on lobbying and ethics reform. Remember Jack Abramoff, 'Duke' Cunningham, Bob Ney, the raids on Reps. Doolittle and Nevis? Remember the Democrats' campaign against the 'culture of corruption' in DC? The Democrats now have to show what they're worth in ethics reform, and the public should know this.

From last week's New York Times: